Interesting dilemmas facing G20 countries as their finance ministers and central bankers get together on the golf ball strewn Scottish coast ( a meeting in St Andrews we will be Live Blogging on MacroScope, by the way).

First, you have the Brazilians who are worried about hot money and have already slapped a tax on foreign investments in domestic bonds and stocks in order to cool down capital inflows.  They want the G20 to take action against what their central bank chief calls “imbalance- and bubble-building”.

Next you have the Americans and other big economies who know that the huge amounts of stimulus they have put into the world economy have to be removed eventually. They are not ready to do it yet, but expect the G20 countries to discuss how they are going to “sequence” the great unwinding.

And then there is Argentina, which is not alone in noticing that talk of unwinding tends to put investors on edge.  Its central bank governor wants the big countries to be careful, fearing a rapid reversal of stimulus policies could mean big outflows in emerging market countries such as, er, Argentina.

So a tricky balance, a super-sensitive investor audience, and plenty of domestic politics. Fore!

Henrique Meirelles, Brazil’s highly rated central bank president, gave unusual insight into current thinking at the International Olympic Committee in a speech in Oxford the other night.

Diverging from his main theme on Brazil’s remarkable journey from economic basket case to emerging market superpower, Meirelles said that he had gone to Copenhagen last month as part of Rio de Janeiro’s successful bid for the 2016 Olympics. The reason: The IOC asked him to come.

Meirelles said that the IOC knew that Brazil currently had all the conditions needed to host the Games, but wanted to know about how predictable it was that this would carry through over the next seven years. “They wanted to know what is really happening,” he said.

Essentially, the IOC wanted to check with the top economic manager that the country’s finances will still be shining when the Games are held.

 Perhaps they were thinking of London 2012.

Reuters correspondent Emily Kaiser analyzes the G-20 draft communique.

There is little doubt that the BRICs — Brazil, Russia, India and China — have become big players in Africa. According to Standard Bank of South Africa, BRIC trade with the continent has snowballed from just $16 billion in 2000 to $157 billion last year. That is a 33 percent compounded annual growth rate.

What is behind this? At one level, the BRICs, as they grow, are clearly recognising commercial and strategic opportunities in Africa. But Standard Bank reckons other, more individual, drivers are also at play.

In a new report, the bank looks at what each of the individual BRIC countries is trying to do. To whit:

– Brazil’s immediate intererest in Africa is securing access to natural resources, particularly oil. But is also motivated by a desire to create a new “Southern Axis” with itself at the forefront.

– Russia is also interested in Africa’s natural resources. But it faces a problem because of the sullied reputation of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. So Moscow has also embarked on a rebranding programme within the continent by ramping up its aid programmes.

– India is attracted to Africa in part because of long historic ties. Commercial engagement, however, is also motivated by a need to guarantee the natural resources it needs for its own growth. Furthermore Africa is seen politically as a key ally in the pursuit of a competitive advantage over its Asian competitor China.

– For China, Africa provides a long-term partner in its ongoing bid to gain global economic ascendancy, providing it with the resources, markets, geopolitical support, and, eventually, food and social security in the form of a growing and engaging diaspora.

A full copy of Standard Bank’s report, which was written by Simon Freemantle and Jeremy Stevens, can be found here.

(Photo: Jeremy Gaunt)

Emerging market ministers, particularly those from the BRIC economies — Brazil, Russia, India and China — are painting this weekend’s G20 meeting as a victory in dragging them out of the shadows of global policy-making.

The finance ministers’ statement included the promise of more money for the International Monetary Fund and regional development banks, on whom struggling emerging economies rely for support.

It accelerated a review of IMF quotas by two years to 2011, which should give emerging economies more say in the running of the multilateral lender. It also suggested that the headship of IFIs — international financial institutions — would no longer be guaranteed to Americans or Europeans. 

BRIC countries even issued their own communique, ahead of the final statement. “There is a conclusion that has been reached in recent years, which is that the resolution to today’s global problems is only possible with the participation of emerging countries,” Brazil’s central bank governor Henrique Meirelles told MacroScope.

 ”There is a natural evolution of the decision-making process, which many important countries agree on, that decisions move from the G7 to the G20.”

But were there actually any major concessions?  Tim Ash,  head of emerging Europe, Middle East and Africa research at RBS thinks not.

“Clearly they would like things to change, but I’m not sure that much has actually changed,” he says.

Brazil’s president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva lays out his views  today on how the world will work in the future. It’s part of a Financial Times blog on the outlook for capitalism:

“It will reward production and not speculation. The function of the financial sector will be to stimulate productive activity…. International trade will be free of the protectionism that shows dangerous signs of intensifying. The reformed multilateral organisations will operate programmes to support poor and emerging economies with the aim of reducing the imbalances that scar the world today. There will be a new and democratic system of global governance. New energy policies, reform of systems of production and of patterns of consumption will ensure the survival of a planet threatened today by global warming. But, above all, I hope for a world free of the economic dogmas that invaded the thinking of many and were presented as absolute truths.”

Goldman Sachs has long been a keen advocate of the BRICs — Brazil, Russia, India and China – as a new power tool for world growth. Indeed, it is credited with coining the phrase.

In a note, the firm says that even though the group is being hit differently by the global slowdown — Russia suffering most,  India least — a uniform drive from the four will return as soon as the cycle starts to turn.

It is predicting big things as early as next year.  It says China’s economy is already the third largest in the world and it sees it eclipsing current No. 2  Japan as early as 2010. Furthermore, as a group, the four countries are set to be dominant.

“Our long-term projections envisage the BRICs as an aggregate surpassing the G7 by 2035,” it says.

Trade protectionism – or at least the threat of it — has raised it head as the global economy has declined, bringing with it all the historical fears about the Great Depression. Consider the flurry of concern about a “Buy American” clause in one of the U.S. stimulus bills.

It is traditionally assumed that widespread protectionism would most hurt the biggest economies, the United States and Japan. But Barclays Capital analyst David Woo says this is not so and that Russia, Canada, Australia and Sweden are the most vulnerable.

Woo studied various factors that would play on the effect of protectionism on a country, from openness and flexibility to its dependence on trade and it savings.

Japan turned out to be the least vulnerable. “Its relative closeness, relative flexibility of its labour market, and its terms of trade more than outweigh the negative contribution to its growth from a narrowing of its trade surplus in a global protectionist environment,” Woo writes.

As for the United States, “the only reason why it failed to take first place is because of its extremely low saving rate, which will limit the scope for domestic demand to offset falling exports.”

Mexico,  India and China took the third, fourth and fifth places, respectively. So it’s not all about emerging markets.